I have a feeling the first party may be more fun.. just a hunch:)

Steve


"Ronald L. Parker" wrote:
> 
> On Sun, 3 Jan 1999 09:52:09 +1000, "Lance Birch"
> <zon### [at] satcomnetau> wrote:
> 
> >Why 2000?  It's not the start of the new millennium... You should make it
> >for 2001, so the deadline will be 2000 Dec 31.
> >
> >Let's all get this right this time, the new millennium DOES NOT start on the
> >year 2000!!!  It starts on the year 2001, 2000 is the last year of the
> >current millennium not the first year of the new one.
> 
> Hear, hear!  But you know, nobody will listen to reason on this, so I
> propose that we join the rest of the mathematically challenged in
> celebrating 2000, then have a big millenium bash a year later for
> 2001.  That way everybody wins, twice.

Post a reply to this message